4.7 Article

A study on the enzymatic hydrolysis of steam exploded napiergrass with alkaline treatment using artificial neural networks and regression analysis

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jtice.2011.04.002

关键词

Enzymatic hydrolysis; Back-propagation neural network; Regression analysis; Steam explosion

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To facilitate the enzymatic saccharification of widely available lignocellulosic biomass, napiergrass was subjected to a two-stage pretreatment process consisting of steam explosion (SE) followed by alkaline delignification. SE was performed under various reaction temperatures, reaction times, and particle sizes. The experimental results show that the two-stage pretreatment process was effective at removing xylan and lignin and significantly enhanced the enzymatic digestibility of napiergrass. Up to 85% of the lignin in the original material was removed, leaving a cellulose-rich residue that was highly susceptible to enzymatic hydrolysis; the enzymatic digestibility reached 96.1%. SE alone was not sufficient, because considerable amount of lignin still remained in the steam-exploded solids. In addition to experimental work, models predicting digestibility as a function of SE conditions were developed using artificial neural network and regression techniques, and their performance was compared. Three different methods were used, i.e., the back-propagation neural network (BPNN), the multiple linear regression (MLR), and the partial least-square regression (PLS). The input of the model was the three parameters of steam explosion (temperature, time, and particle size), while the enzymatic digestibility was the output. The results show that the BPNN model provided reasonable predictive performance. In addition, the SE temperature was found to be the most significant factor among the three parameters studied, followed by the SE time. (C) 2011 Taiwan Institute of Chemical Engineers. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据